Welfare on Credit Confesses Its Failure

The admission that growth is a condition for social progress exposes the economic limit of distributive politics.

The Welfare-on-Credit Illusion: The Socialist Capitulation Before the Laws of Economics
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

The history of economic thought could be reduced to the eternal struggle between the immutable laws of the nature of human action and the stubborn arrogance of state planners who attempt to ignore them.
Recently, we have witnessed an extraordinary admission by the economic leadership of the governing Marxist matrix itself: it has been stated, with apparent lucidity, that without economic growth it is intrinsically impossible to achieve social and economic improvement.
This recognition, although presented as an axiom of political pragmatism, is nothing other than an ideological capitulation before the most elementary economic theory.
It is the involuntary confession that progress and social advancement are absolutely impossible if the individual is deprived of the ability to undertake enterprise, to educate himself, to work and, fundamentally, to accumulate capital.
However, the tragedy of socialist praxis lies in the fact that its executors are incapable of acting in accordance with the truths that their own mouths are forced to pronounce.
While official discourse praises growth, the government’s action over the last year and a half has strangled it.
At every level of administration —from the nation’s ministerial offices to the offices of departmental governments— the recipe applied has been the same: unrestrained expansion of public spending, paralysis of productive activity and massive indebtedness that mortgages the future.
The Logical Priority of Production
For the economist who does not allow himself to be blinded by the mystique of statism, the premise is crystal clear: wealth must be created before it can become the object of any attempt at distribution.
Capital is not a gift of nature that spontaneously springs from the soil, nor a macroeconomic variable that bureaucrats can manipulate at will by decree.
Capital is the accumulated result of past saving; it is the fruit of the sacrifice of individuals who chose to postpone present consumption in the hope of generating a more efficient productive apparatus for tomorrow.
When the ordinary citizen studies, works and undertakes enterprise, he is valuing his future.
If he is allowed to retain the surplus of his effort, that capital is immediately reinvested.
It is translated into better tools, more advanced technologies, genuine employment and a greater supply of goods.
This is the only real and sustainable mechanism of social advancement.
Class mobility is not decreed in a ministry; it is caused by the increase in the marginal productivity of labor, which only rises when the capital available per inhabitant is greater.
Fiscal Disorder and the Confiscation of the Future
What happens, instead, when the State decides that its own expansion is more urgent than private dynamism?
The systematic asphyxiation of civil society occurs.
The disorder in ministerial and departmental spending that we are witnessing today is not a simple accounting error; it is the inevitable consequence of operating under a soft budget constraint, where the bureaucrat does not risk his own wealth and therefore lacks any incentive for efficiency and moderation.
Faced with the abyss of the deficit caused by its own waste, the political caste resorts to the most perverse and cowardly mechanism of state financial engineering: the contracting of public debt.
From the perspective of the Austrian School, we must dismantle the fallacy that debt is a source of resources.
Public debt is not wealth; it is, by definition, a deferred tax.
Every bond placed by a ministry, every trust structured by a departmental government to finance current spending, spurious public employment or clientelist subsidies, represents a legislated extraction from future generations.
The young people of the future will suffer greater fiscal pressure or the erosion of their income through inflation, simply to sustain the sterile feast of the present bureaucracy.
The Crowding-Out Effect and Institutional Destruction
This two-level financial disorder, national and local, causes immediate damage through the phenomenon of displacement or crowding out.
The State, by turning to credit markets equipped with its coercive power to collect revenue, becomes an unfair competitor to the private sector.
It absorbs available savings, raises the cost of money and diverts resources from truly productive activities toward the maintenance of unproductive state structures.
The entrepreneur seeking financing to open a factory, or the young person wishing to acquire a capital good, discovers that credit has been confiscated by fiscal voracity.
Additionally, misunderstood decentralization encourages free-rider behavior.
Departmental governments spend with the absolute certainty that, in the face of an imminent crisis, the central government or the common financial structure will rescue them to avoid institutional collapse.
Thus the principle of fiscal responsibility is destroyed, systematically sweeping the dust of bankruptcy under the carpet of sovereign debt.
The Fiscal Illusion and the Path Toward Freedom
Why does the citizenry tolerate such institutional plunder?
The answer lies in fiscal illusion.
The bureaucracy is highly skilled at making visible the supposed benefits of present spending —the inauguration of accessory works, the increase in public payrolls, the privileges— while keeping the real cost invisible, diluted in the mass of debt and postponed over time.
The ordinary citizen perceives the apparent welfare of today, but does not notice that the basis of his economic freedom is being demolished.
Traditional political checks and balances have shown their total ineffectiveness; deliberative institutions have become mere theaters of party rhetoric where the legitimacy of spending is not questioned, but only who will administer it.
If society wishes to turn away from the road to servitude and stagnation, it must understand that the solution does not lie in replacing one set of state administrators with another promising a “more orderly management.”
The solution requires an institutional reform that introduces unbreakable and supreme limits on spending and indebtedness, completely stripping politics of its discretionary power to confiscate the future.
As long as bureaucratic disorder can be financed through the easy expedient of credit, the State will continue devouring civil society, proving that there is no worse blind man than the ruler who, while recognizing the laws of economics in his speech, systematically violates them in his actions.

Growth and production.
Public debt.
Fiscal responsibility.

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics